They should keep Gitmo going if for no other reason than the possibility that Cheney and Rumsfeld will be inmates there someday.

I always had you pegged as a GOP man Dbert, now I am all confused.

There are some anti-imperialist conservatives don'tcha know. Like Pat Buchanan and (being presumptuous here) dogbert.

Some call them paleo-conservatives as contrasted to the neocons. The very conservative former congressman Bob Barr is, if I recall correctly, currently working for the American Civil Liberties Union and actively campaigning against the Patriot Act.

The anti-imperialist liberals and the anti-imperialist conservatives may disagree strenuously on issues like universal health care, but that doesn't mean we can't agree on opposing an imperialist foreign policy.

That's how coalitions are formed.

I agree. And right now I think that the direction in which the current administration has taken the country is fundamentally a far far more important concern than the other policy issues on which we may disagree.

And I agree also, dogbert. That's why I try (with substantial effort) to avoid insulting potential allies on the basis of issues where we might disagree. (I generally use socialized universal health care as my example.)

However, in the case of true believers who will support and cheer for any inhumane form of torture or any atrocity against innocent people or suspects while blaming their victims for the persecution, I am less charitable. They are much closer to the kind of messianic violence that drives fascism and they are the most dangerous people there are (in my opinion) whether they are Muslim fundamentalists or secular torturers of the occupation forces. There are several people on this forum with such a mentality and I would never want to go out for beers and argue politics with them. I would enjoy doing that with you even knowing that we would only agree on a limited number of issues and would probably end up having a heated argument about some issues. That's OK with me. I could enjoy having many heated arguments with you, which I believe is one of the true signs of civilized people.

And I agree also, dogbert. That's why I try (with substantial effort) to avoid insulting potential allies on the basis of issues where we might disagree. (I generally use socialized universal health care as my example.)

Just between you and me, I don't deny that there is urgent need for health care reform of some kind and I believe there are some conservative politicians who are coming around to acknowledge this.

The ability and willingness of a society to care for those of its members in need should not be ideological, I believe.

R. S. Refugee wrote:

However, in the case of true believers who will support and cheer for any inhumane form of torture or any atrocity against innocent people or suspects while blaming their victims for the persecution, I am less charitable. They are much closer to the kind of messianic violence that drives fascism and they are the most dangerous people there are (in my opinion) whether they are Muslim fundamentalists or secular torturers of the occupation forces. There are several people on this forum with such a mentality and I would never want to go out for beers and argue politics with them. I would enjoy doing that with you even knowing that we would only agree on a limited number of issues and would probably end up having a heated argument about some issues. That's OK with me. I could enjoy having many heated arguments with you, which I believe is one of the true signs of civilized people.

Cheers.

Regardless of ideology, all sides should acknowledge that such behavior creates moral rot at the core of our state. That they do not is truly troubling, not to mention the horror of the actual carnage visited upon those our government has condemned.